Sony E 35mm f1.8 and Sony E 10-18mm f4: A Very Good Standard and a Wide Zoom

A battle rages in the hybrid camera sector between the Sony NEX Range with their APS-C sensors and the Micro Four-Thirds cameras. With interchangeable lenses for each the quality is not necessarily fixed when you buy your camera, you can upgrade the optics. In this first look at Sony E mount lenses, we are looking at their most recent additions, but we will look at others too, let us know which are most important to you.

We are looking here at two of the lenses that Sony produce for the NEX range of cameras, the E 35mm f1.8 and the E 10-18mm f4. The NEX camera’s APS-C sensor has a factor of 1.5x to get the equivalent 35mm focal length making the 35mm into a 52.5mm and the zoom is equivalent to a 15-27mm. Both lenses have Optical SteadyShoot, Sony’s image stabilization system.

The E 35mm f1.8 has 8 elements in 6 groups and incorporates ED (Extra Low Dispersion) glass and 2 aspherical elements. The E 10-18mm f4 also includes ED glass in its 10 element, 8 group design and has 3 aspheric elements.

In keeping with the way the NEX system works there are no controls on these lenses other than the manual focus ring, which can be used for full manual focus or to make fine adjustment during auto-focus operation. Of course the zoom lens also has a zoom ring. Apart from these rings the lenses are completely bare. The lenses look a little large mounted on a NEX body, but in fact they are a similar size to equivalents from elsewhere. The 35mm weighs 155g and the 10-18mm 225g.

Further readings for the Sony E 35mm f1.8 and Sony E 10-18mm f4: A Very Good Standard and a Wide Zoom

To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.

Comments

Is the NEX7 a flawed sensor for lens testing?

I've just entered the NEX system, picking up a NEX6 camera with standard power zoom, and also partnering it with a Voigtlander 15mm, used with a Leica M adapter.

I specifically chose the NEX6 over the NEX7, as the behaviour of the NEX7 sensor in the corners appears to be extremely poor when partnered with lenses with small rear element to sensor distance. Examples I've seen of my Voigtlander on the NEX7 have been disappointing, yet the results I've had from the NEX6 have been excellent. Indeed the corner results on my NEX6 are far superior to the lens when used with my old Panasonic GX1, even though the smaller sensor on that might imply less corner issues.

My question would therefore be whether the NEX7 is a wise choice for lens testing, when Sony's newer cameras appear to have a much better anti-aliasing filter/micro lens/filter formulation which fixes these corner softness issues.

Sharpness Comparison With M43

I wonder if the sharpness comparison made here is fair since the NEX7 carries a 24MP sensor yet the Lumix carries a 16MP sensor, i.e. if they have the same score of 9MP does that mean the Lumix G lens is actually sharper? I know system-wise the score is objective, but I believe more credits should be given to the Lumix G lens engineers for making sharper optics.

Re: Sharpness Comparison With M43

Re: Sharpness Comparison With M43

Quote:

24 Mpx on APS-C VS 16 Mpx on M43 would be about the same pixel density so why would these be any different for scoring?

Of course there is a (huge) difference! A low resolution lens on a high resolution sensor can potentially earn better P-MPix score than a high resolution lens on a low resolution sensor and that is the difference! ;)If I calculate a ratio between P-Mix and sensor MPthe Lumix lenses scores 9 P-MPix on a 16MP sensor; i.e. 0.5625the Sony lenses scored 9 P-MPix on a 24MP sensor; i.e. 0.375if the MTF test can be conducted on the same sensor, that would be a fair test for the lenses.

Re: Sharpness Comparison With M43

Quote:

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sony-E-35mm-f1.8-and-Sony-E-10-18mm-f4-A-Very-Good-Standard-and-a-Wide-Zoom">this page on the website</a></div>I wonder if the sharpness comparison made here is fair since the NEX7 carries a 24MP sensor yet the Lumix carries a 16MP sensor, i.e. if they have the same score of 9MP does that mean the Lumix G lens is actually sharper? I know system-wise the score is objective, but I believe more credits should be given to the Lumix G lens engineers for making sharper optics.

Fair? How about the fact that the Panny 25mm costs more and lacks OSS, while Panasonic bodies don't have IBIS? Shall we test lenses while we mount them on a handheld motion simulator so more credit can be given to the Sony engineers, who were able to engineer effective optical stabilization while maintaining a high level of optical integrity?

Did it just drift into your mind to stipulate (against DXOMark precedent) that the Panny 25mm should be tested cross-brand on an Olympus E-M5 body? Well gee, the NEX has no 5-axis IBIS... I wonder if such a performance comparison would be fair in the same vein of your original demand to handicap the competition "to be fair"?

Framing a comparison in a specific way to favor one side or the other is the oldest trick in the book.

Re: Sharpness Comparison With M43

Quote:

[quote author=borispmchan link=topic=1214.msg2441#msg2441 date=1366433451]<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sony-E-35mm-f1.8-and-Sony-E-10-18mm-f4-A-Very-Good-Standard-and-a-Wide-Zoom">this page on the website</a></div>I wonder if the sharpness comparison made here is fair since the NEX7 carries a 24MP sensor yet the Lumix carries a 16MP sensor, i.e. if they have the same score of 9MP does that mean the Lumix G lens is actually sharper? I know system-wise the score is objective, but I believe more credits should be given to the Lumix G lens engineers for making sharper optics.

Fair? How about the fact that the Panny 25mm costs more and lacks OSS, while Panasonic bodies don't have IBIS? Shall we test lenses while we mount them on a handheld motion simulator so more credit can be given to the Sony engineers, who were able to engineer effective optical stabilization while maintaining a high level of optical integrity?

Did it just drift into your mind to stipulate (against DXOMark precedent) that the Panny 25mm should be tested cross-brand on an Olympus E-M5 body? Well gee, the NEX has no 5-axis IBIS... I wonder if such a performance comparison would be fair in the same vein of your original demand to handicap the competition "to be fair"?

Framing a comparison in a specific way to favor one side or the other is the oldest trick in the book.[/quote]

Read carefully, sir. I'm just talking about the SHARPNESS (TECHNICALLY), not about the price/performance ratio whatsoever, which is definitely another matter.

A Ferrari may cost a lot more but it can do 200MPH, while your average Toyota may do no more than 120; when driven by a certain so-so driver both may do just 60MPH in a quarter mile, but does that mean it's fair to say "the Ferrari is just about as good as a Toyota, but actually the Toyota is better since it costs just a fraction"? Hell no, sir. Faster is faster, sharper is sharper, it's just a matter of fact.

There's naught fanboyism here, I'm merely questioning the methodology DXO does the sharpness score. If DXO is going to do another test over effectiveness of image stabilization, that's yet another thing to question.

E Mount Lens test finally!

Please test the SEL18200 (The big silver one) vs SEL18200LE(Narrower black one). The SEL18200 is the older one but reviewers say that is the slightly sharper one!

Also Carl Zeiss 24mm/F1.8 (SEL24F18) would be nice, I bought the SEL35F18 over the CZ 24mm because the Sony one has Image Stabilization which helps in low light and because it was half the price of the CZ!!!

Re: E24 and E20 pancake lens

Other E-mount lenses to test.

At lest E-mount lens test on DXO! long awaited! Great!

I would be very interested in a test of SEL-P1650 (16-50 pancake power zoom)... but be carrefull! Some user forum reports some specificities that should be validated by profesional testing:The pure optical quality semms to be not great (it's a "kit lens" and moreover it's pancake, for APS-C... something unic on the market that can only be compared with Pany PZ pancake), but the lens usability seams to be great thx to in-body automatic correction (for jpg) or automated software profile for RAW.

Some people reported the real optical "wide angle focal lengh" is in fact wider than 16mm (maybe 14mmm or 15mm), so this give a real 16mm equivalent after software correction! I expect a "profesionnal" test to confirm or invalidate this with precise measurments... and consider it in the overal jugement of the lens (the lens is sold as a 16mm wide, so it should be evaluated for it's 16mm performance... not for performance at a focal lengh it's not sold for).

Re: Other E-mount lenses to test.

Other E-mount lenses to test...

I think people would be interested in knowing about:

SEL24F18 - the Carl Zeiss prime, the most expensive lens in the lineupSEL50F18 - the seemingly-weird FL prime that has gained a cult following and possibly the NEX's best low-light lens (perhaps now shared with the SEL35F18)

It would also be a good idea to also have a set of tests using the F3/3N/5N/5R/6 16mpx sensor as well, as that is the NEX's most-prevalent sensor.